I agree philosophy should be accessible to everybody but there are some out there that can't understand or grasp it. I don't think your mind is that slow where comments about me slowing things I figure is just your way of condescension or detracting.

I may very well just 'be' that slow. It is prudent to ask that of myself every once in a while, I did not intend the condescension or distraction. I'll work on changing your mind on all that.

I haven't made a case? Have you not looked at what I've said previously? Are you intentionally ignoring what I've said? Congratulations, you know of one of my old usernames. Everybody here knows including Carleas about the numerous old usernames I've had. No real new revelation there concerning ILP.

Sorry you have made "a" case, and I didn't get it. So let me back up a to what you've stated as you request.

Given the extremes of censorship by other philosophy and political based forums I would like to thank Carleas for creating a free-thought or free-expression environment here. It's a message to other philosophy forums that there is at least one place on the internet where censorship doesn't prevail.

Working forward from here. I asked if we are talking about the same thing. The topic is civility and I'm confused my the mention of censorship. I don't believe I am asking Carleas to censor a subject or topic.

Censorship is a form of bullying or intimidation on an intellectual scale.

I suppose it is a form of. So if I feel tactics like derogatory and demeaning language and saying people are laughing at you are bullying and intimidation on an intellectual scale, and censorship is a form, I'm still not asking Carleas to act as a censor.

You like a few others here are international communists and Marxists under the banner of state democracy as disguise. That for me is enough to warrant a ghastly laugh.

(That disguise by the way no longer works as everybody is starting to figure our your collective aim and endgame for what it is. The jig is up.)

This is where I wanted to slow down. That sounds like name calling and the use of language that is intended as derogatory and demeaning. I guess I am not sure what you mean by Me and a few others are international communists and Marxists under a banner of state democracy as a disguise. I have read what you've said but I am not getting your meaning, it is occluded by the name calling, can you phrase the thinking without the string of labels? Can you specifically address how I evidence these characteristics?

Well, for me since the 1960's liberal democracy in the west has been hijacked by Marxist communists. I say international because the goal by them is eventually a global socialist state.

It seems everywhere in the west we can see liberal democrats supporting globalist projects like the E.U. in Europe and NAFTA of the United States. (Then there is the TPP of the south pacific.)

Some radical Marxists assert things on identity like there is no such thing as race or the assimilation of all racial and cultural identity under the state's directive. They'll also say there is no sexual identity between men and women making it where there is only one unisex identity.

So yes, I believe liberal democracy in the west has been hijacked by radical globalist communists or Marxists. Every time I talk to a liberal democrat more and more they purely sound identical to communists or Marxists.

Essentially you are calling me a hippy.

With regard to race and my question of it and your criticism; Physical Anthropologists and Archeologists have this theory that we began as a species "human" from a common ancestral pairing. Races developed from differentiation as we moved around the planet and were exposed to different conditions. So yeah, I think it is sort of an odd phenomenon, that today we make our cultural and environment differentiation a distinction. When early man was in struggle for territory and resources, it was a common practice to kill all the males and rape all the females. That process mixed the genetic make up of the resulting survivors into a more homogeneous collection. We have a single origin, have differentiated, remixed, for likely our entire history as mankind on this planet. And it is quite likely the process will naturally result in a single race eventually, if we don't become extinct before then. (why I lean towards Green, but even that party looses much of its appeal by the time politics gets involved.) I am not clear why you think it is a problem. We go have gone out and explored and come together again to shared what we've become in the process. I too would be concerned if I thought it was under a state directive like Arianism.

To your argument of globalism. We have developed technology that allows us to move much more freely about the planet. There is no longer the geological isolation that caused us to develop into different races in the first place. We have begun the natural and historical process of remixing as a result, a sort of home coming, if you will. It is time, I think, that we share what we have become in the process. We have only had this technology for a short time relatively speaking. As a natural cycle it seems inevitable. I am not going to get all intelligent design on you, but it is an awareness that has colored my view of the world at large. I do start to wonder myself. If it happened entirely by accident, It is even more impressive.

So I am liberal, if this sort of thinking is what makes a person liberal. I am not strictly speaking a democrat, while I have leaned in that direction it isn't a party thing for me. I simply have agreed in the past with some key ideas expressed by democrats in the democratic/republican war in play. This home coming is not an easy thing to do. From a political perspective, I do see the need, in this reintegration, for ideas gleaned from socialism and communism as potentially helpful, but by the time they get turned into a party platform, I find the party practice, so far, a failure. Not so much because of the ideology, but our performance at it.

The corruption of it, democracy, socialism or communism, is not a flavor that I find appealing, but if I were to have to eat one, democracy is my choice.

From my experience usually when people discuss civility it is because they perceive a lack of civility and then they discuss about needing new rules or laws in enforcing civility which censorship is discussed right around the corner of all that. Interestingly enough I don't believe in civility in that I believe we live in a very uncivilized world and really the word civility doesn't mean much of anything at all. No, you haven't asked for censorship but some individuals here who have a similar philosophy to yours have in the past. People of the so called liberal democratic party of the United States have demanded censorship. This is why I'm a bit suspect initially.

In the 1950's onward Soviet Communists or Marxists made it no secret that they would in effect work with the bourgeois liberal democrats in the United States which they did. Some have postulated the Soviet plan all along was to take over the liberal democratic party from within (infiltration)and many including myself believe that they had in fact historically succeeded. This isn't limited to the democratic party within the United States but indeed many democratic political parties all throughout the western sphere of influence.

It's interesting you should mention the hippie movement of the United States as that was ripe of cultural Marxism. Indeed, if you see old photos of Woodstock you'll notice Marxist flyer booths in the background.

I believe race is an illustration of subspecies and is evolutionary but also I do believe there are some social constructs attached to it. It is both. Really my beliefs on culture and race are quite moderate.

One thing you'll notice is that I'm a big critic of technological progressivism, transhumanism, and scientism. So, you're just going to have to accept my complete rejection of your narrative of global technological salvation. As for intelligent design position I'm an atheist.

As an anarchist I would eventually like to see the abolishment of the national state for more anarchist self rule (although I'm starting to become pessimistic of this ever happening anytime soon or at all) so I'm not entirely behind government nationalists however I view globalism transforming into global government as the greatest threat to humanity where out of this I support nationalism even though I'm not a nationalist myself. I support nationalism as a way against global government despite also being against nationalism. (It's an awkward complicated position to be in the middle of both movements.)

Finally, I view state controlled democracy as not being a real or genuine form of democracy at all. For me direct democracy is the only genuine kind but even then it has various problems.

Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

From my experience usually when people discuss civility it is because they perceive a lack of civility and then they discuss about needing new rules or laws in enforcing civility which censorship is discussed right around the corner of all that. Interestingly enough I don't believe in civility in that I believe we live in a very uncivilized world and really the word civility doesn't mean much of anything at all. No, you haven't asked for censorship but some individuals here who have a similar philosophy to yours have in the past. People of the so called liberal democratic party of the United States have demanded censorship. This is why I'm a bit suspect initially.

For something that doesn't exist you do a fair job in its practice. I do agree that the world appears very uncivilized at times. A work in progress so to speak. I don't think civilization is singularly about how we respond to each other in dialog though, that's is just one aspect. Community is involved and has a sort of place component as well as a cultural aspect. Art as an element of civilization might be a useful example. Caveman painted images on walls and likely there was something ritual or ceremonial taking place, fairly primitive images, they were flat and without perspective, and lacked dimension, and today we have richly symbolic works of art that are exquisite examples of representation... we have learned along the way, developed. I find it difficult to deny just because at times it can appear so uncivilized that there isn't development and progress exampled along the way. I am married, love my wife, I don't call her stupid or demean her, I don't get my friends together to laugh at her behind her back. I certainly don't make fun of her. Even in a world that sometimes appears uncivilized. I don't think you would have a relationship with another human being if there were not civility in practice so I am a bit surprised by your argument that you flat out don't believe in it on the grounds that we live in a very uncivilized world.

Hold my place, I'd like to respond further.

my goal in life is to die and no one notices.in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.

On second thought, we have strayed a bit from the topic at hand. Rather then to continue on the tangent. I'd just like to say thanks, I have learned in the process. We share a critique of many similar issues.

my goal in life is to die and no one notices.in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.

Mowk wrote:On second thought, we have strayed a bit from the topic at hand. Rather then to continue on the tangent. I'd just like to say thanks, I have learned in the process. We share a critique of many similar issues.

If you want to carry the conversation elsewhere I am open to suggestions.

Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Sorry for the month+ delay in this response, I discovered this in my saved drafts, written roughly a month ago, but I still think it's worth posting.

Amorphos wrote:I was attempting to point out where people know themselves that what they are saying is based in hate.

I don't think that's the right standard. One way to challenge it is to ask, Can someone make a sound and cogent argument that is "based in hate"? I think the answer is 'yes'. Imagine someone who argues against Nihilism because they hate what it leads to. Or who writes Christian apologetics motivated by a hatred of sin. In fact, the argument is a form of ad hominem, targeting the person making it and other beliefs they may espouse, rather than the argument they are presenting.

Perhaps I'm reading your comment too literally. And certainly many arguments motivated by hate will in fact be bad arguments, as generally emotive reasoning is motivated reasoning. But strictly speaking, I disagree that motivation from hate is enough by itself to justify an intervention.

Amorphos wrote:repetition of that to the extent we get here is abhorrent imho.

Repetition, on the other hand, frequently is enough to justify an intervention. It can be trolling, derailing, generally disruptive to other conversations. But it's a hard line to police. Let's say I've read Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking and really took it to heart. When I participate in a thread, I recast it in terms of Dennett's work. That's likely to be annoying, it might be disruptive/derailing, but it doesn't seem illegitimate to do so. Furthermore, every truth we ever discover will need to be shared anew with every new human that lands among us. Repetition, within reason, is justified by everyone who isn't yet convinced.

And importantly, there's a problem when we say that certain behavior (over-repetition of a stance or mode of thought) is illegitimate, but only when it's used to express a certain idea. That is a content-based restriction on speech, and I don't think that suits a philosophy forum.

Amorphos wrote:I've been on e.g. gaming sites where the moderators stop all such attacks and the world doesn't explode. you just get civil although still passionate debates.

I think that restriction is appropriate on a gaming site. Hell, I've been on gaming sites that didn't allow discussion of politics, because politics always leads to petty meltdowns. But this isn't a gaming site, we're here to support something different. Philosophy is a broader topic, and a site dedicated to it has to be more tolerant of socially unacceptable ideas.

As for spitting in the face of people you disagree with, that doesn't seem like an effective way to proceed with a philosophical inquiry, and I'd say it's no coincidence that it has all but completely died out in the academy. And everywhere else people are trying to accomplish anything.

Mowk wrote:And you believe your moderator of SG&E practices this art?

No. Nor, for that matter, do I reliably practice it. Being a dick to people I disagree with is regrettably satisfying to my ape brain, and I do it often. I'm often a dick to Uccisore, intentionally, in the heat of an argument where we're both losing our cool -- along with all the civility that depends on keeping a level head.

Mowk wrote:Lets say, I and the other members of ILP are not peers of moderators. Have you lost any respect for a moderator that lacks the responsibility to avoid bickering matches in favor of substantive discussions of philosophy?

Obviously, Uccisore and I approach discussion differently. We discuss differently, we moderate differently, and as such I disagree with some of what Uccisore does. But a large part of that disagreement is philosophical. Uccisore and I disagree about government on all levels, we disagree about human nature, we disagree about the Good and how to achieve it. So of course we disagree about the best way to moderate a site, or to have a philosophical conversation.

But I know Uccisore to be a good philosopher, to be capable of thinking clearly and articulating his thoughts well, and, crucially for being a moderator, to be able to recognize good philosophy when he sees it. Obviously, my disagreements with Uccisore affect my internal model of him as a person, and I judge him reflexively based on what he says and how he says it. And I'm sometimes tempted to lower my estimation of him based on how he engages. But I also have to acknowledge that some of his most cogent arguments have been delivered like spit in the face.

While civility is good, this site would suck if it were everyone sitting around sipping tea and politely discussing the weather. We should accept a sacrifice of some civility for more substance. If I could wave a wand and make Uccisore not quite so abrasive, I probably would. But if the choice is to take his arguments as spit in the face or not at all, I'd rather keep a hanky nearby.

Civility is also a function of sensitivity,what's civil and rational to one may not be for another,where objectivity missed its mark, between its intended and actual use. There is sometimes a wide gap between intended meaning and its actual effective reception. Some will even confuse group adjustment on off the mark trolling as forms of hostility

This is true, the further question may be, how the importance and context of a situation effects the sensibility/sensitivity of perceived standards of civility, and even inordinately changing the perceptions of those standards?

What we settle for... live and let live? "Spit in face"? Hope your immune system is stronger than mine, cause a hanky doesn't do it.

We could be sitting around sipping tea and talking philosophy too. "If" that is what he's talkin? I thought it sounded more like politics and my dick is bigger than yours. And you want call that philosophy?

>>Whistles blown, flags down in the backfield; looks like it could be offensive holding.<<

my goal in life is to die and no one notices.in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.

Mowk wrote:We could be sitting around sipping tea and talking philosophy too.

I've done this IRL, and on multiple occasions it's ended with everyone standing up and shouting and, yeah, getting a little spittle on each others faces.

Look, the founder of Western philosophy was put to death for what amounts to 'doing philosophy', right? We know going into this that the conversations that go on here are going to strike a nerve, it's effectively by design. The standard can't be that when someone has a nerve struck, they're red carded (if you can abuse my hanky metaphor, I can abuse your sports metaphor :). If people get impassioned about philosophy, and they say "look you jerk, you're wrong because XYZ", that's rude and uncivil and ceteris paribus undesirable, but still often tolerable if XYZ is a real meaty response to whatever that jerk said.

And again, I agree that civility is better, and that calling someone a jerk or spitting in their face imposes a real cost. Calling someone a jerk or spitting in their face is not philosophy, so to the extent someone does it, they are tautologically diluting any philosophical conversation. Ceteris paribus, it should be avoided. But that's not the end all and be all of a philosophical conversation. Good philosophy plus bad manners is still good philosophy.

jerkey wrote:This is true, the further question may be, how the importance and context of a situation effects the sensibility/sensitivity of perceived standards of civility, and even inordinately changing the perceptions of those standards?

Context is crucial. But equally as important [from my frame of mind] is the extent to which our own understanding of any specific context is intertwined in the manner in which we have come to understand the world around us --- as this pertains to our interactions with others out in any particular world.

Why are some more civil than others in reacting to different sets of circumstances? How is this too largely just an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which our own personal experiences have shaped and molded "I" subjectively/subjunctively into a particular set of reactions?

Bound to history, bound to culture, bound to a particular set of relationships, bound to a particular interaction with a particular constellation of information and knowledge.

In other words, bound to one actual human existence rather than another.

Is there enough continuity here so that folks who deem themselves to be rational human beings are able to engender an argument that is said to encompass an optimal understanding of civility? Or, instead, is it more reasonable to presume that at best we can only encompass civility in a democratic framework whereby different political factions will ever vie to establish "here and now" behaviors that are said to be either more or less civil.

Or, if the behaviors are deemed to be uncivil, still justified in terms of the necessity to achieve any particular ends.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

and politics, arguably good or bad + ban manners, is still bad manners with some spit in the face. :shrug: Could someone point me in the direction of his "good" philosophy? I am curious what that looks like.

my goal in life is to die and no one notices.in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.

I am a slow thinker. I do not believe I have used the "I've been on this planet for X so I should know" argument. How long you have been "around" is a part but only a part. There have been many that have walked this planet for what we experience as "a long time" that haven't garnered any real benefit in wisdom or knowing as result of simply existing. A person's time on this planet is no assurance of wisdom or intellect gained. To claim as much is a form of misdirection and an effort toward manipulation. Not representative of a pursuit of truth but an endeavor to advance a personal agenda. (the loosest definition of politics). By the example; of his argument, anyone who has been on the planet longer than he (which includes me) should trump (as in card games, not political figures) his thinking if one were to think reflexively. Being older then he does not "trump" his thinking, yet he seems to using the presupposition in the opening paragraph of his argument you linked to as indicative in his defense.

You have asked if I am able to recognize it? Can I see a valid argument that is beyond my own opinion? There is a reflexive nature to this question that I haven't been able to shake. If this is the criteria on which I am judged, has the criteria been applied as judgement objectively and reflexively?

Members and moderators should be measured at least by the same yardstick reflexively. I might argue, moderators, even more critically.

my goal in life is to die and no one notices.in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.

You asked for some of his good philosophy, I think that is good philosophy even though, like you, I don't agree with it, and I think there are ways to criticize it. It's thoughtful, well-reasoned, novel, challenging; it's well-written and it's worth reading and turning over in my head. Even where I find it fails to make the case, it is a challenge to articulate why. I understand the topic better for having read it, even though I didn't agree with or adopt the conclusions.